| 6457 E.g., Homer I1. 15.612–614; 16.441; see further the discussion on John 2:4 . 6458 E.g., Homer Il. 6.487–488. 6459 Excepting his military victories (Pss. So1. 17:21–25); Martyn, Theology, 96. But on new-Moses signs of some of the «signs prophets,» see our introduction, pp. 270–72. 6460 Martyn, Theology, 93. 6461 Tilborg, Ephesus, 101–7, suggests that John " s audience will read «high priests» through the lens of those in Ephesus; but even uninformed Ephesian readers would know of Jewish high priests (cf. Acts 19:14), and believers might know them from the gospel tradition preserved in the Synoptics. Still less likely is Derrett " s association of «rulers» in 7with cosmic powers («ρχοντες»); though this association appears in some passages (see Keener, Paul, 64–65), «rulers» were normally human (e.g., Rom 13:1 ). 6462 Despite the same Greek term as in Luke 4(and CIJ l:xcix; 1:124, §172; Leon, Jews, 190), these bear no relationship with the hazzan of the synagogue (cf. Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 49); the term had a broader usage ( Prov 14:35 ; Isa 32:5; Dan 3LXX; Wis 6:4; John 18:3,12, 18,22,36; 19:6 ; Matt 5:25; Mark 14:54,65 ; Luke 1:2; Acts 5:22,26; 13:5; 26:16; 1Cor 4:1 ). John 7:32, 45–46 refers to the templés Levite police (Jeremias, Jerusalem, 210); see also comment on 18:3. 6463 Cf. here also Von Wahlde, «Terms,» 233. Probably by the end of the second century, the head of the rabbinic movement could dispatch troops, authorizing arrests of wayward rabbis (p. Hor. 3:1, §2; Sanh. 2:1, §3, though probably fictitious). 6464 See Keener, Matthew, 351–53, 538–40. 6465 Thus Pharisees and chief priests are linked especially by Matthew (Matt 21:45; 27:62) and, writing after those who saw themselves as Pharisaism " s heirs had gained greater power (led by the Pharisaic leader Gamaliel II), John (7:32,45; 11:47,57; 18:3). See further comment on our introduction to 1:19–28. 6466 John probably recycles his material in various contexts, which was acceptable rhetorical technique (Theon Progymn. 4.73–79; 5.388–441); cf. Brown, John, 1(citing 8:21–22). |
| Apparently unaware of Jesus» previous sign known to Johns audience (2:1–11), the authorities now demand a sign (2:18; cf. again 6:30). 4696 In the logic of his contemporaries, 4697 if Jesus acts on Gods authority, he should be able to demonstrate it supernaturally. (John likely borrows this demand for a sign from authentic Jesus tradition, as appears in Mark 8:11 , which was already applied to the resurrection, perhaps as early as the Q tradition in Luke 11and Matt 16:1–4.) 4698 Paradoxically, however, those without power (2:9) and the more open-minded among those in power (3:2) already know of Jesus» attesting signs. Likewise, some characters in the context need only very small signs to believe (1:48–49; 4:18–19,29), in contrast to these sign-demanding Judeans. 4699 By inviting them to «destroy» the temple of his body (2:19), that is, kill him (cf. 8:28), 4700 Jesus stands in the prophetic tradition of an ironic imperative (e.g., Matt 23:32). 4701 Yet without special illumination, his hearers were doomed to interpret the riddle wrongly, as Jesus» opponents throughout the Fourth Gospel habitually misunderstand him, requiring the evangelist to offer inspired interpretation. 4702 Jesus» words could be understood as referring to the natural temple, which is how the «false witnesses» of Mark " s tradition seem to have understood them ( Mark 15:29 ; cf. Acts 6:14). 4703 One could speak of building the second temple as «raising» it up (εγερειν, Sib. Or. 3.290). 4704 John " s εγερω thus functions as another Johannine double entendre, misunderstood by interlocutors in the story world while clear to the informed audience. 4705 «In three days» is equivalent to «on the third day»; part of a day was counted a whole. 4706 In some traditions of uncertain date the soul hovered near the corpse for «three days» after death; 4707 one might also think of resurrection or resuscitation in Hos 6:2 ; Jonah 1:17. But «three days» has so many possible referents 4708 that, apart from a retrospective understanding, his opponents within the story world could not catch an allusion to his resurrection. To Johns audience, however, the allusion is clear, intensifying their distaste for the ignorance of Jesus» opponents who lack the critical revelatory knowledge that John s audience possesses. 4709 |
| Some other ancient miracle accounts include one person offering a petition on behalf of another, though the preponderance of extant requests are for the petitioner himself or herself. 5686 More specifically, rabbinic tradition recounts a late-first-century C.E. miracle of Hanina ben Dosa that resembles the miracle in John " s story (especially in the long-distance healing and confirmation). 5687 The point, however, is different: whereas the rabbinic tale exalts God who answers prayer, this report exalts Jesus. 5688 The long-distance healing at another " s request also bears some resemblance to the healing of the centurion " s servant in the common tradition shared by Matthew and Luke. 5689 Some think that John here depends on an independent tradition originally recounting the same event reported by Matthew and Luke; 5690 the similarities are few enough, however, to allow the possibility that the traditions recount two distinct events. 5691 The strongest parallel between this account and that of the centurion " s servant is the long-distance healing, which is also reported in the story of the socially elite Syro-Phoenician woman. 5692 Still, the mention of Capernaum in both may be significant; though central to Jesus» ministry in the Synoptics, it is mentioned there only eleven times. He did many miracles there (Matt 11:23; Mark 1:21–26; 2:1–12 ; Luke 4:23), but the only specific miracle Q reports there was the healing of a prominent outsider " s dependent (Matt 8:5; Luke 7:1). What may be significant about all these stories is that together they reinforce the picture that long-distance healings were regarded as especially miraculous. 5693 The possibility of a suppliant lacking in faith may not have surprised ancient readers; thus the Epidauros inscriptions report many who came to the sanctuary for healing yet scoffed when they saw the reports of healings. Then Asclepius appeared to them in dreams, and they believed and were healed. 5694 As in this narrative, in which the royal official hears of the healer (4:47), people were often referred to healing sanctuaries or healers. 5695 Words of assurance (4:50) were also common in miracle stories, 5696 though reports of sending away (4:50) are much rarer. 5697 Instant healings were sometimes reported. 5698 |
| Granted, Matthew and Luke exercise freedom in arranging and editing Mark and other sources that they share in common; but this editing must be judged minimal by ancient standards, not affecting the content as substantially as those who cite this «freedom» often assume. 291 That the Gospel writers themselves saw such variation as within their permissible range may be suggested by Lukés triple recounting of Paul " s conversion with differences in details each time, though the core of the story remains the same. 292 Where Mark and «Q» overlap (e.g., Mark 1:7–13 with Matt 3:7–4:ll/Luke 3:7–17, 4:1–13; Mark 3:22–27 with Matt 12:24–30/Luke 11:15–23), one gains a similar impression of Mark " s faithfulness to the preexisting tradition. 293 Although the differences in the accounts may be more striking to a reader accustomed to harmonizing the Gospels, the points of comparison are generally far more striking when one takes into account that the first three gospels were written at different times, from different possible sources, and to different audiences. Furthermore, even at their latest possible date of composition, they derive from a period close to the events, when the influence of eyewitnesses of the events remained prominent in the early church. Some scholars may place the dates too early, but even on the consensus datings of the Gospels, they must stem from a period when eyewitness testimony remained central to the church, 294 and at least Luke seems to have had direct access to eyewitness corroboration for some of his traditional material (1:1–4). Ancient rhetoricians regularly attack the credibility of witnesses for a contrary position (e.g., Josephus Life 356), and courts sometimes dismissed the reliability of some kinds of witnesses on account of their gender or social status. 295 One would, however, be hard-pressed to view the earliest disciples» witness as fabrication, given the price they were prepared to pay for it. 296 Luke also claims to have investigated matters thoroughly (1:3). |
| Matt 17:5; Mark 9:7 ; Luke 9:35). «Hear him» in the transfiguration story probably alludes in this context to Deut 18:15 ; 3861 likewise the mountain; cloud; allusion to tabernacles; transfiguration (cf. Exod 34:29); presence of Moses and Elijah on the mount (Exod 34:2; 1 Kgs 19:8); and the timing («six days,» cf. Exod 24:16) all suggest allusions to Moses. 3862 The present text, however, distinguishes various roles, suggesting that more than mainstream Christian theology stands behind it. It is possible that the segment of Judaism from which much of John " s community and/or its opponents sprang laid heavy emphasis on the eschatological prophet (1:25; 6:14; 7:40; 9:17); while a prophet Christology would be inadequate (4:19, 25–29; 6:14–15; 7:40–41), Jesus is clearly a prophet (4:44; 9:17), 3863 hence foreshadows the prophetic ministry of the Johannine community (16:7–15). 3864 2C. A Voice Crying (1:23) John the Baptist thus denies any prophesied function except that of forerunner, and even a qualified form of that (since he is not Elijah). Naturally the Fourth Gospel does not apply to John some of the traditional texts, such as Mark " s midrashic blending of Mai 3with Isa 40( Mark 1:2–3 ) 3865 or Matthew " s citation of Malachi in a different context (Matt 11:10); this passage in Malachi would too easily evoke an allusion to Mai 4:5–6 and require a more detailed explanation of the sense in which John is or is not an Elijah redivivus. But Isaiah " s promise of a new exodus 3866 and a messenger preparing the way (apparently giving orders to construction engineers and provincials) before the king at the head of the people was fitting. 3867 All four gospels apply the Isaiah text to John, but only the Fourth places the citation on John s own lips. Some scholars suggest that the Fourth Gospel here reflects an independent tradition about the Baptist since this Gospel, unlike the Synoptics, 3868 does not follow the LXX reading. 3869 While Johns normally eclectic appropriation of text types requires us to leave the question open in this case, 3870 other evidence favoring his independence might support this conclusion. |
| 4052 The saying may, however, reflect eschatological nuances concerning the expected «coming one» (cf. the participle in 3:31). 4053 The Baptist s original saying concerning one mightier than himself may have alluded to Daniel 7s Son of Man, as Kraeling assumes, 4054 in which case the Fourth Gospel may merely clarify the idea of préexistence already implicit in the tradition of the Baptist " s words here. 4055 In the Fourth Gospel, the Baptist declares paradoxically, «One comes after me who came before me, for he was first before me.» The first «came before me» may be read as a reference to preeminence; status-conscious ancients allowed those of higher rank to enter or be seated before them as a mark of respect. 4056 Such respect was typically accorded the aged, 4057 but for the Gospel " s informed audience, the respectable antiquity to which the Johannine Baptist refers is no mere matter of primogeniture or age, but préexistence itself (1:1–3). 3. Jesus and the Abiding Spirit (1:32–33) Although the Baptist " s «witness» resounds throughout the surrounding narrative, the author underlines John " s testimony at this point in the narrative («And John witnessed, saying»), 4058 which recounts John " s eyewitness experience. Michaels feels that none of the extant gospels contradicts the Markan portraits of Jesus alone seeing the dove and hearing the voice; 4059 but given the usual nature of «heavenly voices» in Jewish texts, it may be more likely that all four intended the event publicly. Thus one need not regard this encounter as merely an ecstatic experience of Jesus. 4060 This passage fits John " s theology: the Spirit is prominent in this Gospel (1:32–33; 3:5,6, 8, 34; 4:23–24; 6:63; 7:39; 14:17, 26; 15:26; 16:13; 20:22), and draws attention to and attests Jesus (14:26; 15:26; 16:13); 4061 the Spirit " s descent accords with the Gospel " s vertical dualism; that John «sees» (1:32,34) the Spirit " s descent fits another motif in this Gospel (e.g., 1:14; see introduction). The title «holy spirit,» frequent in Judaism by this period, is reserved for the first, last, and one other pneumatological passage in the Gospel; this title thus frames the books pneumatology as a large inclusio (1:33; 14:26; 20:22). 4062 Yet despite the author " s employment of this title in his literary design, the first reference derives from his tradition (all four extant gospels concur at this point in the tradition: Mark 1:8 ; Matt 3:11; Luke 3:16). The Baptist " s words here are again rooted in tradition (cf. Mark 1:8–10 ; Matt 3:11,16; Luke 3:16, 22); where he can be checked against other extant sources, our author again makes his point by adapting available tradition rather than by fabricating what suits him. |
| If we extract separate texts and ideas from Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition, it is easy to find seeming contradictions in them. Genuine theology, in its understanding of revelation, always applied the principle of (if we can say so) “gnosiological catholicity.” The entire content of Scripture and Tradition expressed in so many books, texts, and ideas must be considered as one whole, of which each element depends on the others and on their totality. Only this understanding which unites the particular with the whole and comprehends everything in the light of the truth in the totality of its content is right. In Scripture and Tradition everything is complementary and each element explains the other. All is necessary for the understanding of the whole. But the foundation of theology is the knowledge of God. Theology must be built in the perspective of this knowledge. There is only one teacher and one true doctrine for the Church, that is: Jesus Christ and His teaching (Matt. 23:8). “Whosoever transgresseth and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ hath not God” (II John: 9). The preservation of the purity – that is the Orthodoxy–of Christ’s teaching has exceptional importance ( Gal. 1:6–12; II Cor. 4:1–6). All teachers who do not follow Christ or who deform His teaching are useless even for themselves – as food of bad quality (Heb. 13:7–9). All the fleshly, worldly, purely human doctrines and all myths can be harmful (Col. 2:4–23; Phil. 3:17–21; II Tim. 4:2–5). St. Paul violentiy rejects Pharisaical Judaism ( Gal. 1:6–12 ; Phil. 3:1–11 ). Our Lord Jesus Christ proclaims that all that is purely human (inasmuch as it is consciously or unconsciously opposed to God), and Judaism (which is opposed to Him) is derived from Satan (Matt. 16:22–23; John 8:49 ). VIII. Catholicity and Ethics God is holy because His existence and life are perfect. If the life of the Son of God and of the Holy Spirit is from the Father ( John 5:26, 15:26 ), their holiness is also from the Father. Is the Son of God not the truth and the Logos of holiness, and the Holy Spirit the very holy hypostatical life? 12 Thus divine holiness, like divine truth, is manifested in three hypostatical forms. |
| The response of confusion (6:40–41) stems from an inadequate hermeneutic; they knew Jesus according to the flesh but missed his genuine identity, which could be understood only by the Spirit ( John 3:3, 11–12 ; cf. 2Cor 5:16–17 ; Matt 11:25; 16:17; Luke 10:21). 6172 Their grumbling (6:41; cf. 6:61; 7:32) recalls the grumbling of Exod 16:2, 6173 but in that case Israel grumbled before receiving the manna, whereas these hearers complain after receiving bread and the invitation of the ultimate satiation for their hunger. 6174 Perhaps because of their attitude at this point, these Galileans finally receive the ironically pejorative title «Jews,» that is, «Judeans.» 6175 The rejection of Jesus based on familiarity with him (6:42) undoubtedly reflects historical tradition ( Mark 6:1–6 ; Matt 13:53–58), 6176 while also serving John " s particular emphasis (1:11). Johns readers probably know the virgin birth tradition, which is earlier than either Matthew or Luke (their testimonies appear in accounts independent from one another), and if John does know this tradition (see comment on 7:41–42), 6:42 may presuppose the reader " s knowledge that the crowd " s claim to knowledge reveals ignorance. 6177 But John is more interested in their ignorance of Jesus» ultimate place of origin. That other outsiders admit ignorance of his place of origin (7:27) makes the present inadequate claim to know his place of origin all the more ironic. Jesus notes that the Father draws some to him (6:43–44), using biblical language for God drawing Israel to himself in the wilderness or the exile ( Jer 31:3 ; Hos 11LXX); 6178 the reader later learns that the Father draws such adherents through the proclamation of the cross ( John 12:32–33 ). 6179 Only those whom the Father gives to Jesus «come» to him in faith (6:37, 44). Jewish prayers such as the fifth benediction of the Amidah recognized God " s sovereignty even in granting repentance (cf. Rom 2:4 ). 6180 Like most of his Jewish contemporaries, John felt no tension between predestination and free wil1. 6181 Antinomies were in any case standard fare both in Greco-Roman rhetoricians and in Jewish writings. 6182 Because of increasing cosmic fatalism in late antiquity, philosophers had to begin defending a doctrine of free will previously taken for granted, and early Christian commentators likewise proved careful to emphasize that Jesus» statements do not deny free wil1. 6183 |
| 5079 Exod. Rab. 15(citing a fourth-century rabbi, perhaps influenced by some Jewish Christian teaching). 5080 Sib. Or. 1.72; cf. " Abot R. Nat. 41A. If a specific object of God " s general love is in view, it remains unclear (probably assumed) in Gen. Rab. 33:3 (third century); 58:9. 5082 Num. Rab. 14(attributed, perhaps anachronistically, to R. Eleazar b. Azariah, ca. 70–135 C.E.). 5084 Roberts, «Only Begotten, " » 14. Some writers emphasized the fortitude of some fathers who endured their sons» deaths (Valerius Maximus 5.10, passim), but 3probably appeals more to paternal affection, and hence evokes sympathy for such a painful sacrifice. 5086 We read Jesus» remark in Matt 8as a question, with, e.g., Jeremias, Promise, 30; Martin, «Servant,» 15; France, «Exegesis,» 257. 5088 In 3:15, èv ατω may refer to have «life in Him,» since John elsewhere uses ες rather than ν with πιστεω (Barrett, John, 214), although in general ες and εν tended to merge in Koine (Mussies, «Greek in Palestine,» 1042; Bruce, Books, 66). 5089 Petersen, Sociology, 47, argues that it is present from the standpoint of the reader but not in the story world (cf. 7:39); but the matter might be debated either way (cf. 1:6; 5:45; 8:56). 5090 Cf. similar comments in Culpepper, John, 98, on Johannine faith as a way of life rather than «a static response»; he presents the beloved disciple as the chief Johannine example of faith (p. 100; cf. 20:8). 5091 This is consonant with early Christian soteriology in general; see, e.g., Keener and Usry, Faith, 114–23, esp. 119–20; for similar statements of Jesus» mission in non-Johannine Jesus tradition, see Luke 9:56; 19:10; cf. Mark 2:17; 3:4 ; late manuscripts of Matt 18:11. Cf. the somewhat different perspective on this Johannine tradition in Diogn. 7.4–6: in love God sent Jesus, not to condemn, but he will condemn when he returns. 5093 Even if one adds the occurrences in Revelation (Rev 7:10; 12:10; 19:1), these references constitute less than 10 percent of NT occurrences–hardly a characteristic Johannine term. |
| Or it may mean that Jesus knows their hearts (2:23–25), knowing that when they find him as he really is they want him dead (8:59). In either case his provocation of them merely reveals their established character. Jewish people regularly spoke of «our father Abraham» 6793 and themselves as his children (8:39); 6794 they would have surely bristled at Jesus» challenge. 6795 Perhaps because she did not express excessive trust in it Jesus did not challenge the Samaritan woman " s claim to descent from Jacob (4:12), but he challenges the claim of these Judeans. Nevertheless, the issue in this context is not merely genetic descent, which Jesus seems to grant them (8:37); their claim to be Abraham " s children (8:39) is undoubtedly a related claim to salvation (cf. «our father Abraham» in 8:39, 52; Matt 3:9; Luke 3:8). 6796 Some see here an appeal to Abraham " s merits. 6797 Latter rabbis stressed Israel " s first redemption from Egypt and deliverance through the sea on the basis of patriarchal merits, 6798 reportedly depending on pre-Christian tradition concerning Abrahams merit. 6799 (The idea of God showing favor to descendants for an ancestor " s sake does appear in Scripture, e.g., Deut 7:8; 10:15; 1 Kgs 11:36; 2 Kgs 8:19; 2 Chr 21:7.) Later rabbis sometimes attributed God " s blessings on Israel to merits of the patriarchs, 6800 or occasionally the matriarchs, 6801 though some also emphasized the greater importance of onés own merits. 6802 But opinion was not unanimous even by the end of the second century, 6803 and there appears little explicit connection between merits and personal benefits unrelated to corporate blessing on Israe1. Nevertheless, the notion of dependence on Abrahamic descent for salvation is explicit in early Christian polemical texts (such as Matt 3:9). 6804 That Jewish people could seek God " s blessings for his people on the basis of his covenant with the patriarchs (2Macc 1:2; Sg Three 11) suggests the antiquity of potential dependence on Abraham. |
|
|
